-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update unit tests for Consistency05 and Consistency06 #1303
Update unit tests for Consistency05 and Consistency06 #1303
Conversation
ebbab4f
to
6bf1e01
Compare
6bf1e01
to
158202c
Compare
@tgreenx, can you review this and also the underlying zonemaster/zonemaster#1213? |
@marc-vanderwal and @tgreenx, can you review this? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. I just have one, non-blocking comment.
# Scenarios CHILD-ZONE-LAME-1 and IB-ADDR-MISMATCH-3 cannot be tested due to a bug in the implementation. See | ||
# https://github.com/zonemaster/zonemaster-engine/issues/1301 | ||
# | ||
my %subtests = ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For easier reviewing it would be best if the scenario keys in this hash were ordered in the same way as in the specification.
The same applies for file t/Test-consistency06.t
below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I really agree. This an artefact of my script that converts a specification to a t
file. I just created a Perl hash and took the order keys
gave. I will update the script to get the same order as the specification.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will fix that afterwards.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will fix that in a new PR.
Purpose
The PR creates unit tests based on the new test zone framework. The unit tests in this PR is based on the data in zonemaster/zonemaster#1213. It also removes old unit tests.
Due to a bug in the implementation of Constistency05 and Consistency06, respectively, some scenarios cannot presently be used. The following scenarios have not been included as unit tests due to the bug:
The bug is described in #1300 and #1301.
Changes
New unit tests are added in
t/Test-consistency05.t
andt/Test-consistency06.t
(plus data files).Old unit tests for Consistency05 and Consistency06 are removed, except for
t/Test-consistency05-F.t
andt/Test-consistency06-B.t
that have been kept since they test for the presence ofNO_RESPONSE
(with the help of "fake delegation").The
MANIFEST
file has also been updated.How to test this PR
Review zonemaster/zonemaster#1213 and verify that the CI passes.